On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 06:52:35PM -0600, dan wrote:
[...]
> You make a lot more sence here, but I think you overestimate CPU usage.
> backuppc is so IO bound that after your get a 2Ghz+ Dual core and 2GB RAM
> you can pretty much blame your disks for slow performance. I have a dual
> core 2Ghz
Hi
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:52:35 -0600, dan wrote:
> >the "perfect" max load should be the number of cpus you have,
> >so a quad-core server can sustain a load of 4 without any
> >problem... after that number, the higher the load, the higher
> >will be the performanc
>the "perfect" max load should be the number of cpus you have,
>so a quad-core server can sustain a load of 4 without any
>problem... after that number, the higher the load, the higher
>will be the performance lost
>
> I dont agree here at all. backuppc is not gener
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Michael Stowe
wrote:
>
> It's an awfully good question, but there probably isn't a single right
> answer. My server is a quad-cpu beast on a gigabit network, but I settled
> on two backups at a time after measuring degradation (first back up one at
> a time, then t
Hi
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:39:22 -0700, James Ward wrote:
> What's a good IO/WAIT average to shoot for? Load average? Other
> things I might not be thinking of?
the "perfect" max load should be the number of cpus you have,
so a quad-core server can sustain a load of 4 without a
It's an awfully good question, but there probably isn't a single right
answer. My server is a quad-cpu beast on a gigabit network, but I settled
on two backups at a time after measuring degradation (first back up one at
a time, then two, then three...) Then again, neither my file system nor
serv
The discussion over the various BackupPC scenarios got me to
thinking. My server IS disk bound. All the servers it backs up on on
at least a 100M network link in the same room and some on 1G. With
the default settings (4 simultaneous backups), the system is sitting
right now at load aver
